2/28 Letters to the editor

February 27, 2006

I was quite pleased and also quite surprised to see an article about a religion other than Christianity in the Clovis News Journal. (“ Local Buddhist improvises …” on Feb. 17)

Thank you for your courage to present it to the public, and please let Rhomylly Forbes know that I admire her courage and perseverance to continue to seek her religion in such a small, closed-minded town as Portales and even the Clovis area.

I was, however, deeply concerned and even saddened that you included the comment from Peter Aulson, the Christian pastor, which was so negative. This only goes to show once again how closed minded your area is and you are as a journalist.

Why couldn’t you just let the article go without such a rude and closed-minded comment?

I just wanted to let you know it would have been totally refreshing to see the growth the area is making through the News Journal, but alas the true color of prejudice, intolerance and discrimination came screaming to light in Aulson’s comments.

It certainly is an injustice to Forbes.

Michele Morris
Clovis

Roundabout distinct improvement
Kudos to the city for putting in the roundabout at Norris and Llano Estacado.

I was very apprehensive at first. Now that I have gone around a few times at what used to be heavy traffic times, I have concluded it is awesome!

The City Commission and mayor deserve many kudos for this marvel.

Also, very much thanks to Pastor David Swann and Faith Christian Family Church for allowing us to use their parking lot to get home during construction of the roundabout.

Dan Lindsey
Clovis

Species act ‘reforms’ really step back
I strongly disagree with your January editorial praising recent efforts in Congress to rewrite the Endangered Species Act.

Bills sponsored by Rep. Richard Pombo, R-Calif., and Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, do nothing to improve the Act. Under the guise of so-called “reform,” they actually rip apart one of our nation’s most important and successful environmental laws.

While improvements to the critical habitat designation process could be made, removing habitat protection altogether, as these bills propose, would prevent endangered plants and animals from recovering.

Your editorial also claims there is a “33-year ESA tradition of imposing regulatory burdens” on landowners. This is a myth. According to the Fish and Wildlife Service, only 1 percent of development projects considered under the ESA have been halted or delayed.

The Pombo bill would also set a dangerous precedent by paying developers to follow the law. What’s next, paying DuPont to obey the Clean Water Act and not dump chemicals in our streams?

Taxpayers do place a premium on protecting endangered species, but we want our money put to good use. These bills will only benefit industry, not the public, not good stewards of the land, and certainly not our nation’s imperiled wildlife. In fact, the president’s proposed 2007 budget slashes funding for programs that pay landowners to help conserve wildlife habitat, like the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program and Conservation Security Program. Even the endangered species recovery program was cut.

Taxpayers, family farmers, ranchers, and conservationists are furious. But where’s the outcry from Pombo and Crapo? There is none. That’s a clear message that Pombo and Crapo don’t give two licks about helping landowners or wildlife, and that the endangered species bills they have proposed are a farce.